I'm not saying my students are better than yours. I realize that each student is different. That's why I said "average". I am however saying that I believe our STP program is a better program than S/L. BUT...I am NOT saying that S/L is not a good program. I believe it is a viable student training program that is proven. But I believe at the end of each of these programs, a student from our STP program has a significant advantage that is well worth the extra money spent. I believe this from my experience with students from both programs.

Like anything else, generalization is not the best way to judge and I realize that. But this thread seems to be comparing AFF vs. S/L. I don't know another efficient way to discuss the differences without generalizing, at least somewhat.

You say that S/L has 3-4 jumps per AFF jump. I said our student program does 18 jumps and I used for comparison a S/L student and STP student, each with 25 jumps. That's 1 for 1 if I'm not mistaken. I used the A-license requirement for a means of comparison.

Again, I'm not knocking the S/L program. Many, many fantastic skydivers entered the sport through that method. But I am a firm believer that our STP program is better, much better.

This thread has also discussed costs involved. Yes, the STP or AFF program is more expensive, but I believe our STP program is more cost effective in the long run. I've heard the arguments both ways. I've seen and experienced both programs. My opinion remains firm. BUT, it is just that.....my opinion.

There are many reasons why S/L progression is dying: trend, DZ need for fast money, fast education, wrongly considered as old fashion...well your choice. AFF if faster for sure but I believe this is not for everybody. Some people would prefer a slower progression and have more time between jumps to get knowledgeable about skydiving or in a word, getting more mature skydivingly speaking. Some facts show more or less as you said that after 20-30 jumps, you don't see a big difference between former AFF and S/L students only for the money they have invested. AFF required more sudden money especially if you register for the whole program and at some DZ, you don't have the choice. The best would be that a DZ offers the choice between AAF, S/L and also IAD (Instructor Assisted Deployment). That would please everybody. The advantage with AFF is that you use the same rig all the time. Same with IAD where the pilot chute poach has just to allow the pilot chute to be on the left side for IAD and on the right side for free fall. Some DZ are still using S/L and believe strongly in that program. A good example is Skydive Toronto Inc. which was the home DZ of Jay Moledzki, the canopy piloting world champion. No too bad for a S/L DZ. You have here the point of view of a jumper. I guess a DZ owner's answer might be quite different.

Your students will be better and you will keep them longer if you are able to spend more time with them. S/L program is better for that because it takes more time. When will people understand that skydiving is a social sport. Beginners have to feel being part of the family. And yes, you can drop S/L jumpers from a Twin Otter like I have seen it at ZHills a year ago.

Your students will be better and you will keep them longer if you are able to spend more time with them. S/L program is better for that because it takes more time. When will people understand that skydiving is a social sport. Beginners have to feel being part of the family. And yes, you can drop S/L jumpers from a Twin Otter like I have seen it at ZHills a year ago.

While I understand what you're saying and why, in some cases I disagree. The STP program I described is nearly as long (in jumps) as a static line progression. And I spend SIGNIFICANTLY more time with each student on one-on-one instruction/coaching for each jump, particularly in freefall. We don't deal with 3 students at a time. We provide a detailed video debrief of each jump.

I realize that many AFF programs don't offer the same. But there are many dropzones that continue a coaching/training program beyond the minimum requirements.

>you will keep them longer if you are able to spend more time with them. > S/L program is better for that because it takes more time.

At high volume drop zones I have noticed the opposite.

During a typical AFF jump, you get direct attention from 1 or 2 instructors for ground prep, aircraft ride, the jump itself and (sometimes) the landing and the walk back. During a typical SL jump, you get 1/3 of the attention from 1 instructor on the ground and in the plane, no direct attention (other than observation) in the air and, generally, the attention of someone else when you're landing.

From there, of course, both students can have lots of attention paid to them (by the instructor or someone else) or none, for debriefs, next dive prep etc. But going purely on a program basis, you get far more 'face time' with an instructor in AFF.

It sounds like what you are offering is like you say, more than the average training. You can take that same philosophy of teaching above and beyond and put out above average jumpers in any discipline. As you said though, it translates into more money. Oh, and the cost of training beyond A license is the same, no matter what method you used to get your license. Lift tickets, and lots of them. I imagine I will still be learning how to be a better skydiver 3000 jumps from now. Were my freefall skills as good as and average AFF jumper turned A license at the same jump #'s, probably not. Are they now, compared to an "average" jumper that progressed through AFF, probably. The point of the post, it seems is off topic though. This isn't AFF verses Static-Line. This is why isn't Static line offered as a viable alternative, when up front funds are an issue.

I agree with you up to the point where the student reaches the end of the AFF program. No wonder, he has paid the big money. I also understand that big DZs need to be very efficient. But from my point of view the social part of skydiving is still the most important for the health of our sport. I invite everybody to read again a chapter or two of a related post of mine written in 2006 : << STATE OF SPORT PARA.FINAL.240.doc (56.0 KB) >> published on "Skydiving History and Trivia" forum on this site.

I agree with all. If you consider "up-front" costs the determining factor, then S/L is definitely the less expensive option. In a lot of cases people don't want to wait to accumulate funds. They want to skydive now. I understand that.

I am merely pointing out that considering value for the $$, there may be better options. I know plenty of broke-ass 18-year olds that packed their way through AFF and on to hundreds, even thousands of jumps. Sometimes it's worth considering what you're getting for your money (or your pack jobs) rather than "up-front" costs.

For my ~$1400 (4 years ago) I got 25 jumps, including at least 10 coach jumps from 14K in an Otter, and my A license. Same as the person who paid $1000 more for AFF. That $1000 bought me some tunnel time and a whole lot more jumps.

This isn't AFF verses Static-Line. This is why isn't Static line offered as a viable alternative, when up front funds are an issue.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for pointing this out. I am in no way saying one is better over the other. We NEED options in this sport because there are so many variances in people, programs, drop zones, etc.

I have been a long time avid lurker of this forum and have recently begun to throw in my 2 cents here and there. What has struck me as odd time and time again is when a newbie (who hasn't even jumped yet or perhaps made a tandem) is not able to jump because of funds. I never saw anyone say "hey you know there is this static line program out there offered at smaller dz's and it might be something to consider"

And NB I am not doubting you have a good program. I just don't think it is the "norm". I have seen AFF students set "free" after 8 jumps. Then they either get coaching or just do some unsupervised solo's until they have enough jumps to get their A license. Some even seem like little lost puppies. I WILL say that I believe it is up to the student to seek advice, seek more experienced jumpers to help them continue through their progression.

Again, I never intended to make this a "which is better" discussion - I just wish it were presented more to those entering into the sport without the knowledge to KNOW they could go to a smaller Cessna DZ and start jumping today!

I agree with all, particularly that variety is good. I think JP and another stated that earlier. S/L is still certainly a very viable option for those short on funds that want to jump and certainly has other advantages as well. I suppose my emphasis on the other has precluded that, but yes, I agree.

>Isn't the objective of the PRCP to pull the dummy ripcord in good order, >not to "beat the deployment"?

Yes. However, if you do arch - reach - (canopy opens) - feel - pull, you really haven't demonstrated your ability to deploy a parachute while remaining stable in freefall. That's a disadvantage to direct bag, and an advantage to PCA.

I see your point...but (devil's advocate) they aren't deploying anything with a dummy ripcord - they're showing that they can hold an arch and finish the PRCP, demonstrating they can complete the primary objective - "PULL"

What has struck me as odd time and time again is when a newbie (who hasn't even jumped yet or perhaps made a tandem) is not able to jump because of funds. I never saw anyone say "hey you know there is this static line program out there offered at smaller dz's and it might be something to consider"

Probably Definitely off-topic, but you got me started:

[can of worns] Something that really annoys the hell out of me personally is when a student buys gear and chooses to jump without AAD only because they 'haven't got the funds'. [/can of worms]

[barrel of worms] This is especially true if they buy brand new custom equipment and proceed to make 500 jumps that season. think people! [/barrel of worms]

Well, here's my personal view on it - as someone that's planning on doing AFF this summer my reason is current for me.

When I got the urge to try the sport, I went to a dropzone to do a static line jump, got the days worth of training, swore at the wind that had ripped off I believe all three windsocks and came back a few weeks later. Jump went well, landed on my feet and generally felt amazing :)

However, when I think of progressing like that it worries me because on youtube there are many videos showing AFF students going unstable during freefall, and I wonder - if I am on s/l, that means I'm starting from lower heights, which means if I go unstable there is less time to deal with it. I guess it's the idea that, if you have 14,000 feet to fall from, there is more time to get stable/get used to it.

So from a 'I have no idea what I'm talking about' point of view, it seems safer as there appears to be more time, though this does conversely mean more time to do wrong in. I would do static line again, but, I don't think I would be so comfy with starting freefall that way because you're on your own and it seems like more action compacted into a smaller time frame. I only have these thoughts because there is an alternative. And probably because of the damaged knee I got from a rather aggressive Norwegian fyord has given me a year to sit and think about it rather than being able to do it after my first.

Please, I would love for some explanations on why I'm looking at it the wrong way, because if my point of view is flawed then you could make it possible for me to try get my skydive license for a third-ish of the price if everything went well. :)

Oh and the being cool thing - it makes me sad when people do things for that reason - there's not much dumber. Reminds me of the guy I did the s/l with, he had 4 jumps by this point, and after it he told me the best thing about it was that everyone on the motorway beside the dropzone would have seen him and thought 'wow there's a guy under a parachute - how cool'. I remember thinking why were you looking at the road, of all the things to look at....

>if you have 14,000 feet to fall from, there is more time to get stable/get used to it.

There is some truth to that. SL relies on your parachute being opened so rapidly for your first few jumps that you can't get yourself in too much trouble. The first few freefalls are the 'danger' area where an unstable student can be bad news. However, the ability to do that (exit and remain stable for a few seconds) is sort of what static line is all about, and much of the training covers how to do that. The thinking is that if you can do it for 5 seconds you can "work up" to longer delays and higher freefall speeds.

Valid point. As to her question about whether more altitude gives her more time to get into trouble ...

We use two different airplanes for PFF. One airplane only climbs to 10,000 feet, while they other airplane easily climbs to 12,500 feet. I prefer doing PFF dives from 12,500 feet because it gives the student more time to relax in freefall and more time to accomplish tasks. PFF dives always seem "rushed" from 10,000 feet and are always more "relaxed" from 12,500 feet.

The dividing line is at students who can only afford one AFF jump per month. They will forget too much between dives and will have to repeat too many levels. For the same money, they can make three S/L dives, remember what they did on the last dive and add to those skills.

I've started working on my A license and I'm going through the static line progression. The DZ provides all three methods (S/L, AFF, Tandem) or any mix-n-match the students want. By going the S/L route, I'll save more than $1,000. I didn't go the tandem route because, even though it's the money-maker for the DZOs, you're just baggage.

Since I don't have to make any more jumps than people going through AFF or tandem, I will actually get the A license (assuming no repeat jumps) plus an additional 40 jumps for the same cost. That, of course, puts me into a B license if I decide to work on that (probably will).

S/L isn't an inferior discipline. Just follow the money. AFF and tandem progressions make more money for the DZOs. That's why, at most DZs, the tandems get priority on the loads, followed by AFFs, then followed by S/Ls, licensed jumpers, etc.

Oh and the being cool thing - it makes me sad when people do things for that reason - there's not much dumber. Reminds me of the guy I did the s/l with, he had 4 jumps by this point, and after it he told me the best thing about it was that everyone on the motorway beside the dropzone would have seen him and thought 'wow there's a guy under a parachute - how cool'. I remember thinking why were you looking at the road, of all the things to look at.... You've got the "being cool" thing exactly right. People aren't "buying it" because their canopy didn't open or they had a streamer, etc. They're buying it (most of the time) in the jump plane or under a good canopy. The stats clearly show that the sport can be done safely as long as people don't get complacent or cocky. However, I don't know how many times I hear jumpers talk with whuffo's like every jump is like staring death in the face (just to look cool - i.e., "brave").

I still get nervous every time the door opens but I still jump simply because it's the only way I can get under a canopy and fly. That's not "brave". If the sport was as dangerous as some people want to make it sound (so they look cool), they'd have terror in their eyes before every jump!

People aren't "buying it" because their canopy didn't open or they had a streamer, etc. They're buying it (most of the time) in the jump plane or under a good canopy. The stats clearly show that the sport can be done safely as long as people don't get complacent or cocky.

Yeah, so long as people make sure not to make mistakes, they'll be fine!!!

Actually, no, that still doesn't cover it. You mentioned one of them (aircraft problems) already. This sport isn't remotely safe. But safe enough, yeah, at least for my own personal assessment. Everyone makes their own.

My daughter made a tandem for fun, and it was great, she has other interests now. If she wanted to get her license I like the hybrid idea, tandems, S/L and then some AAF........... I have seen videos of the 30 jump wonders having trouble in freefall (stabilty wise ), I dont recall myself or other S/L buddies having such troubles back in the day ( if we stuck with the program, of course ). Now, I have to agree, HUGELY, that some S/L students REALLY do try do become fatalities !!!

My daughter made a tandem for fun, and it was great, she has other interests now. If she wanted to get her license I like the hybrid idea, tandems, S/L and then some AAF........... I have seen videos of the 30 jump wonders having trouble in freefall (stabilty wise ), I dont recall myself or other S/L buddies having such troubles back in the day ( if we stuck with the program, of course ). Now, I have to agree, HUGELY, that some S/L students REALLY do try do become fatalities !!!

This really doesn't make sense to me. Could you please explain? I don't see how you can say some static line students really do try to become fatalities.

The thing of it is there are people who went through AFF that are decent at 30 jumps and there are people who went through static line progression that are decent also. There are also those who haven't quite acquired the skills by then. 30 jump wonders having trouble in free fall could pertain to either category.

There are several opinions out there, and that is just what they are. People learn differently and what works for one may not work for another. I think having a choice of methods is a good thing.